Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/504

vouchers relating thereto, were perused and examined in the presence of Lady Toppe, by Mr. Burden, the respondent's own agent and though Dr. Stanhope then delivered up his vouchers, yet he was decreed to account over again, without having his vouchers to verify one single item; there being no direction in the decree, that the vouchers should be delivered back, as there ought to have been, since it was thought proper to open that account. That the direction to the Master, that in taking the accounts he should take care to make no allowance against the respondent, but what should appear to be for his use and benefit, was not only unusual, but would put the appellants under great difficulties and hardships; for though they might be able to prove several sums of money paid to the respondent, or by his order, or for his use; yet it might be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that all those sums were afterwards actually applied for his benefit: so that by reason of this strictness in the [164] decree, many aums might be disallowed to the appellants in taking the accounts, which the respondent ought in justice to be charged with. And lastly, that considering the nature and circumstances of this case, there was no reason why the appellants should be punished with costs, and more especially the costs of setting aside the deeds; because several of them were executed while the appellant Dr. Stanhope was an infant, and the other appellant under coverture: and as to the late Mr. Stanhope, as there was no proof of fraud in any of his transactions with the respondent, so, on the other hand, he appeared to have been very kind and serviceable to him.

On the other side it was said (R. Raymond, S. Cowper), that it appeared as well from the acts of the appellants, as by the proofs in the cause, that the respondent was a very weak person, and easily imposed upon; that the appellants had taken a very unjust advantage of his situation, and used the most indirect means and artifices to get him and his estate into their own power, and create misunderstandings between him and his children. That the deeds obtained by the appellants from the respondent of all his estate, were got by the greatest fraud and imposition; some part of the estate being thereby made liable to a demand of £2500 and the interest thereof, which, new amounted to about £7000, and was near as much as the estate was worth, although this £2500 was paid 46 years ago: and further, that by these deeds the respondent was made only tenant for life, without power of making provision for his younger children, or of making leases, and even without a power of revocation; whereby he was not only rendered unable to provide for his younger children, but to pay any just debt. Upon the whole, it clearly appeared, that the respondent, out of his affection to the appellants, was prevailed upon by them to act so unnaturally towards his own children, as to disinherit them of his whole estate; and that by means of the appellant's services, the respondent, who was in a flourishing condition when he came under their management, would, in case their demands were allowed, he involved in such great debts and incumbrances, that he must be utterly ruined; being by their contrivances, rendered incapable of raising any monies to discharge the same.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and the decree therein complained of, affirmed: and it was further ordered, that the appellants should pay the respondent £100 for his costs, in respect of the said appeal. (Jour. vol. 21. p. 338.)